Maimonides
and Nissim of Gerona on

The Nature
of Prophecy

The tenet that the Torah possessed by the
Jews was dictated by G-d to Moses has been firmly established as part Jewish
belief at least since mediaeval times.[1]The Bible is then a prophetic
book.Implicit in this assertion
is the belief that, in deed, prophecy exists.From a political perspective, it is obvious why mediaeval
Jewish philosophers claimed that the Bible is a work of prophecy.This claim gives the Bible binding and
immutable authority.However, from
a theological perspective, it may still be questioned, why is there a need to
insist upon the existence of Divine communication with man?Could not a true religion believe
in one G-d who does not communicate with man?Simply put, why must prophecy exist?

A possible answer to this question is that
prophecy exists simply as a means, a means of communicating true ideas and laws
to man.It is a method G-d employs
to tell human beings information about which they would otherwise be
ignorant.It would then appear
that the state of prophecy, of itself, has no intrinsic value; it is a means to
the end of revealing law and truth.If prophecy has any intrinsic value according to this view, it is as a
proof to the existence of G-d.When G-d speaks to man, man is compelled, at least, to believe in G-d’s
existence.It is, then, not the
information of prophecy that gives prophecy its significance, but the very fact
of its occurrence.In either case,
prophecy exists because it has a specific external use.

Alternatively, prophecy may exist as an
integral part of the natural world.Just as all nature exists as a complex intricacy in which every part is
necessary for the proper functioning of the whole, prophecy, too, exists as a
necessary part of nature.It is
the culmination of human existence.Prophecy is the state of being in which man can truly claim to be a
man.Prophecy is then an ideal
existence irrespective of what external benefits it may produce.It is the natural human perfection of
man.This is not to deny that
incumbent with this individual perfection is the perfection of man’s social
arrangements.It is natural to man
to live in a political community and to be governed by a system of laws.Therefore, mediaeval philosophers infer
from Aristotle that the natural perfection of man includes as a byproduct the
establishment of laws.[2]If prophecy is man at his perfection,
it must generate perfect social laws. In this view, laws are the necessary
outcome of prophecy, but not the reason for the existence of prophecy.In fact, the laws may be designed to
facilitate prophecy for a certain class of society.Thus, the goal in itself is prophecy.

Rabbi Nissim of Gerona presents the first of
these two views of the purpose of the existence of prophecy in his fifth
homily.Maimonides takes the
second view, which, generally speaking, is an Aristotelian view, and, more
precisely, a mediaeval Arabic Neo-Platonic view.Although Ran never actually states this explicitly, it can
be seen from his writing that his opinion that prophecy is a means derives from
his desire to assert G-d’s freedom to act in the world.According to this view, G-d is not
bound to act by any rules of nature.That all the supposed laws of nature are, in fact, the result of G-d’s
constant decision making is a proposition that preceded Ran by several years.[3]Natural prophecy is hereby ruled
out.Ran instead is able to affirm
the belief in the freedom of G-d’s action.Maimonides, on the other hand, by his claim for the
existence of natural prophecy is able to assert the perfect and unchanging
nature of G-d.

These two starting points carry though many
of the issues Ran and Maimonides differ on.For example, the desire to affirm the principle of G-d’s
freedom explains Ran’s choice of the prerequisites of prophecy, which includes
things that are inessential to natural prophecy, but are instead concessions to
the preference of G-d’s will.The
assertion of the principle of G-d’s freedom of action justifies, for Ran, G-d’s
overlooking imperfections in man, such as His overlooking the speech impediment
of Moses, the paradigmatic prophet, when granting him prophecy.[4]It also explains his assertion that all
the Israelites had prophecy at Mount Sinai.And more subtly, the principle of G-d’s freedom of action
underlies Ran’s reliance on proof through miracles, miracles being the clearest
display of G-d ability to act.

Maimonides asserts the unchanging perfect
nature of G-d and therefore Maimonides sees it as man’s job to emulate G-d in
this perfection.Thus, Moses, the
“Divine man,” is the man who has perfected himself.The process of this perfection is perceived as occurring in
a natural way.In fact, nature,
too, is perfect and unchanging, and therefore miracles, which are aberrations
in nature, are signs of imperfection and do not teach man true knowledge.

The topics that relate to the question of the
need for prophecy from a theological perspective are treated diversely by Ran
and Maimonides.These topics
include the following: Is the purpose of prophecy to allow man to serve G-d, or
to elevate man;Does prophecy come
to those people who most please G-d or to those who possess natural preparedness;Is the restraining of prophecy from
those who are naturally worthy explainable, or is it inexplicable;Are the prerequisites for prophecy more
than just moral and intellectual;May G-d over-look the prerequisites;Was Moses unique in his lack of fitness for prophecy or
unique in his exceptionally high level of preparedness for prophecy;Is the authority of Moses derived from
witnessing his prophecy or from experiencing his wisdom;Should onerely on empirical or logical proof;Does G-d consider aesthetics when
granting prophecy.Ran and
Maimonides answer these questions differently from each other but in a
consistent fashion such that come to light two different understandings of the
necessity for prophecy.

Although neither Ran nor Maimonides claims to
be lead to his opinion by anything other that the plain meaning of Biblical and
Talmudic dictum and logical reasoning, there is a consistency to the
explanation each philosopher chooses which indicates each is conforming to a
preconceived opinion.At the core
of Ran’s reasoning is the idea of an unlimited G-d.A G-d that is not bound by any rules whether self imposed or
otherwise is an assumption upon which Ran bases his answers to the above
questions.Alternatively,
Maimonides bases his approach on a conception of an unchanging G-d.This paper will show that the debate
between Ran and Maimonides can be explained in this framework.

Purpose of Prophecy:

In order to conduct an intelligent
investigation of the nature of prophecy a definition of the term prophecy is
needed.As might be expected, Ran
and Maimonides have different definitions for prophecy.In fact, what is prophecy corresponds
to what is the purpose of prophecy.Neither Ran nor Maimonides tries to define prophecy by describing its
outward signs as demonstrated by empirical examination.Rather, they define it by its
theological use, just as one may define a chair by its use, i.e. sitting
on.Prophecy is whatever is its
role in the theological system of Ran and Maimonides.

Ran begins his discussion of prophecy in the
beginning of the fifth homily by describing the purpose of prophecy.Ran quotes the Talmud:"אמר רבי יונתן אין
הקב"ה משרה שכינתו אלא על חכם,גיבור ועשירועניו, וכולם
ממשה."[5]Ran continues:“It is well known that since G-d wanted to create this
world for His glory, and that His objective in our regard is that the human
species should serve Him.It was
thus necessary that He should give to man an emanation/overflow that is beyond
the intellect, an emanation which is called prophecy.Its goal is to perfect the soul so that it should be
illuminated with the Light of Life.A mere intellectual emanation is insufficient for this [goal].”[6]

Ran sees prophecy as the
means to bring man information about how he can serve G-d.Since, after all, man was created for
G-d’s service, he has to know how to serve and glorify G-d, and therefore he
needs a mechanism to tell him what to do.What this mechanism reveals is beyond the human intellect because G-d’s
service is not necessarily fathomable by the human being.Perhaps, Ran continues, one might say
that a human being can come to know how to attend to his body but he certainly
cannot on his own come to know how to attend to his soul or how to attend to
G-d.Man cannot come to know on
his own those things that G-d desires nor that which remedies his soul.As Ran puts it:

Thus, Ran does not perceive of prophecy as man’s
evolution into a perfect state, but only as the conveying of a knowledge
external to himself.Since G-d’s
will is completely free, there are no signs in nature of what G-d desires.Man cannot learn what G-d wants because
G-d’s desires are not bound to any natural or logical rules.It is the freedom of G-d’s action that
forces Ran to conclude that man can never determine G-d’s will.G-d’s will is inherently undetermined.

When Ran writes, “Its goal
is to perfect the soul” he means that via prophecy man can come to know things
that will, in turn, enable him to perfect his soul.Thus, receiving prophecy is not conceived of as a
constituting a state ofperfection, but only as leading to one.Quite the contrary, the fact that prophecy comes to perfect
a man implies that the man is not yet perfect.

Because man cannot perfect
himself on his own, he also cannot work up to being a prophet.Prophecy, when it does occur, must come
to the imperfect and serve as a vehicle to bring him to perfection.But Ran is equivocal on this
point.He writes that the purpose
of prophecy is to allow man to fulfill his purpose which is to serve G-d by
observing the Torah.In this way
Ran de-emphasizes prophecy’s role as bringing human perfection in isolation.Prophecy is for G-d’s sake more than it
is for man’s.In fact, it is
conceivable that an imperfect man can also serve G-d.So, if prophecy is only to enable man to serve G-d,
logically, it does not necessarily bring him perfection.Whatever perfection prophecy does
bring, it is only because Ran has defined perfection as observing the
Torah.Serving G-d is man’s
perfection and prophecy affords this.We will see that prophecy has a very different role for Maimonides.

In Maimonides’ discussion of
prophecy in מורה נבוכים, he describes prophecy:

Prophecy is the highest level
that man can attain. It, itself, is the perfection of man. This is in contrast
to what Ran writes, that prophecy is a method for gaining the מצוות so that man can then know how to serve G-d.Prophecy is not, as Ran contends,
merely a means towards the end of human perfection that is only achieved by
serving G-d by observing the מצוות.For Maimonides, being in the prophetic state is the perfection
itself.It is the highest level
that man can attain.Once a given
person is a prophet, he has achieved perfection.The prophetic state itself is the perfection of man; it is
the goal.It is not that man is
created to serve G-d and therefore needs information on how to do so, but that
man is created to elevate himself toward G-d; his goal is to be a prophet as an
end in itself.Of course, once a
prophet is a prophet Maimonides will concur that he will bring laws and share
his perfection with others, since that is an expressing his perfection.But first and foremost, it is the
self-perfection that prophecy is synonymous with, that makes prophecy a
valuable goal.G-d as an
unchanging perfect being cannot initiate any communication with man.The most that can occur is that man can
achieve an affinity with G-d.He
can rise to G-d’s level, but G-d cannot lower Himself to man’s level.G-d can be likened to a radio
transmitter that is always broadcasting.Once a man builds himself a receiver, he can tune in to G-d.All the while, G-d never changes.Prophecy is then the highest expression
of the natural state of man;it is
the sate where man has built himself into the perfect receiver.

Prophecy as Part of the Natural Order:

Later in this same
chapter, chapter thirty-six, Maimonides discusses the natural character of
prophecy.Prophecy can be said to
be natural if it conforms to observable and rational laws.Maimonides writes that just as all
natural perfections require certain preparations, prophecy too requires
preparations.Since it is a
natural occurrence, but does not come to everyone, it is necessary to identify
its particular causes or conditions.These conditions must be in place before prophecy can obtain in any
person.Thus, Maimonides writes in
talking about the coming of prophecy to a person:[9]"ואז
ישפיע עליו קצת שפע כפי ההכנה."Here "ההכנה" is the point bearing emphasis.The person has to be prepared for prophecy, and the better
his preparation, the more pure and perfect will his prophecy be.This kind of explanation gives prophecy
a causal character, like other natural phenomena.Just as certain physical abilities have causes that must be
prepared, prophecy as well, has causes.This makes prophecy natural and not spontaneous and without cause.

Maimonides then makes a comparison worth noting.He asserts that the true dream that is
fulfilled, is the same as prophecy.That, just as dreams, in a sense, are natural occurrences, since one dreams
about what he sees in the day[10],
so too prophecy is a natural occurrence in the mind of a prophet.He writes: “ אמנם יתחלף ברב
או במעט, לא במין.[11]”The difference between prophecy and dreams is in purity, in level, and
in quality but not in class.They
are the same type of thing; they are bothnatural.This seems to
imply that prophecy too is dependent on the imperfect qualities of the natural
creature, and not the direct product of a perfect God.This may lead us to question the
authority of prophecy but, at the same time, to strengthen the belief in an
unchanging perfect G-d.For G-d to
directly communicate with man in the framework of time would imply change in
G-d, something that Maimonides considers impossible.Rather, it is man who must change and understand the Divine
Truths.

Prophecy as Super-Natural:

Ran does not view prophecy as a natural
occurrence.He views it as direct
communication from G-d, but he does agree that certain conditions must hold for
prophecy to come to a person:

Here we see that on the surface
Ran agrees, that one has to be perfect to receive prophecy.But his reason is that it is not
“fitting” for a person who is not perfect to get prophecy, because a disgusting
person is an abomination to G-d.Ran’s reason is not that the person cannot possibly have prophecy, but
that the person would be a disgrace to G-d if he were to have prophecy, i.e. he
is an unfit representative of G-d.The only reason why a person needs to be perfect to have prophecy is
because it is aesthetically pleasing to men or to G-d. The imperfect man is not
essentially unfit for prophecy.There is no essential necessity in being perfect, it is merely “
fitting”.In Maimonides’
view, if there were such a thing as an aesthetic consideration to receive
prophecy it would be completely irrelevant.If a person has the necessary “הכנות”itdoes not matter if he is a disgrace, or is not a disgrace,
all that matters is whether he is technically prepared.Therefore Maimonides will require
a person to be not disgraceful as an essential requirement.[13]A disgraceful person is incapable of
receiving prophecy because he is imperfect, not because G-d chooses not to
grace him with prophecy.

Maimonides’ position can be illustrated be the following example.An Olympic champion needs to be
physically fit and able in order to represent his country.Ran contends that even so, the country
may choose not to allow him to go to the Olympics if he is an immoral person
even though being immoral will not prevent him from competing effectively.To say that he cannot go because he is
not moral, is to say that going is not determined by inherent ability.We can call this type of exclusion artificial.Only if we conceive of his role in the
Olympics differently, if he becomes a moral representative of the State, can we
understand the need to choose someone who is honorable.Nevertheless, the fact that he is
immoral has nothing to do with how fast he runs. By adding this requirement, we
add an inessential meaning to the Olympics games.Maimonides believes that there is no external reason to
prohibit a person.For Maimonides,
the Olympics would have to be a morality competition, as well, in order for a
person’s morality to be relevant.

These two type of bases upon which to exclude someone are distinguished
as aesthetic versus natural.Ran
believes that prophecy has to conform to aesthetic principles.It has to come to a person who is
aesthetically pleasing, not just to one who is naturally deserving. When Ran
does justify intellectual and moral perfections on a natural basis he does so
only as a secondary reason, and as what seems to be a concession to
appearances.[14]

Granting Prophecy:

Maimonides also restrains
the granting of prophecy only to those whom G-d chooses.However, there is a difference from
Ran’s view.Maimonides writes in
the Moreh Nevuchim:[15]

Here, Maimonides agrees that a prophet must not only be
physically fit, not only have the necessary conditions that the philosophers
say, but also must meet a seemingly extraneous requirement.The prophet must be chosen by G-d to
get prophecy.Thus, Maimonides
also adds conditions to prophecy that are not part of the conception of natural
prophecy.However, there is a
difference between Ran and Maimonides.Ran disqualifies a potential prophet if he is a despicable person.This is why G-d will not choose him,
and this is a logical understandable reason, a Divine preference.On the other hand, Maimonides gives no
reason why G-d does not want this person to have prophecy other than G-d’s
will.For Maimonides, it is just
as possible for prophecy to be prevented as for any miracle to occur.[17]Just as Maimonides believes that G-d
can do miracles in nature, here too G-d does a miracle; G-d prevents someone
from getting the prophecy that is due him according to the rules of
nature.Maimonides does not try to
explain this in any logical way.For Maimonides, this preventing really should not happen whereas for Ran
it is quite logical a person may not get granted prophecy since it is always
dependent on G-d’s will in any case.

It is because Ran has a view
of prophecy as an aesthetic achievement that he asserts that G-d may will
not to grant prophecy to a person.For Ran, it is not an exception to G-d’s rules, or a miracle, when G-d does
not grant prophecy;a disgusting
person should not be a prophet;it is not pleasing to G-d.G-d is exercising his freedom to act and is following no other rule than
doing that which is pleasing to Him.[18]This is derived from Ran’s initial
axiom that the purpose of prophecy is to glorify G-d.Thus, only that which better glorifies G-d can be allowed.

If, on the other hand, the purpose of
prophecy is to perfect man and prophecy is the perfection of man, then if being
disgusting, by definition, is an imperfection and therefore a prophet cannot be
disgusting, then a disgusting person cannot receive prophecy.This is not subject to G-d’s will and,
in fact, denies G-d’s freedom.For
Maimonides, to be a prophet is to be perfect.There is no such concept as being a prophet and being
disgusting at the same time.Therefore, Maimonides agrees with Ran that such a person will not be a
prophet, but this is by nature and not by G-d’s free will decision.Moreover, any prevention of a worthy
man from being a prophet is completely inexplicable.He is perfect after all.Ran however leaves room for the prophet to be
imperfect.G-d may overlook one
perfection, but not another, this being subject to G-d’s free will.There are certain aesthetic
imperfections that are the reason G-d may not wish to give an individual
prophecy.There is thus an
expanded list of criteria that G-d prefers when selecting a prophet , but a
shortened list of criteria that are required to become a prophet.

The Prerequisites of Prophecy:

In determining the
prerequisites for prophecy, Maimonides quotes the same statement that Ran
quotes:

אין הנבואה שורה אלא על (1)חכם, (2)גיבור
(3)ועשיר

This teaches, Maimonides asserts, that a person has to
be perfect in his intellect and mostly in his morals[19].Maimonides divides up these three terms
the following way.He claims that
a person needs all the intellectual perfections and most of the moral
perfections.חכם implies all the
intellectual perfections and עשיר is one of the moral, or non-intellectual
perfections.Being rich one of the
moral perfections because being rich means one is satisfied with what he has –
in accord with what appears in פרקי
אבות –" איזה הוא עשיר,
השמח בחלקו. "גבורis also a moral perfection because it is “one who conquers
his desires.”Based on these
passages, Maimonides constructs a short but strictly adhered to list of
prerequisites to natural prophecy.

As regards the ignorant man,
Maimonides writes in summing up- שינבא אחד מהם אלא כאפשרות
הינבא חמור או צפרדע.זה יסודנו:שאי אפשר מבלתי ההתלמדות והשלמות, ואז יהיה
האפשרות הנתלית בו - גזרת האלוה[20]If first a man has the הכנות,
then G-d can choose to give him prophecy.However, an ignorant man or a frog cannot prophesy because he is
imperfect and there is no way that he can be ready.It is as though he is physically not fit for it.A frog or an עם הארץ
does not have the necessary preparations and therefore cannot be a
prophet.A worthy person who does
not get prophecy can only be understood as being prevented because of something
completely external to him, such as his being in Exile or his generation not
being fit but nothing to do with him personally.If he is a prophet, then by definition he is perfect in
every way and is fitting to prophecy, otherwise he is not a prophet at all and
therefore, there cannot be any logical reason why he will not receive prophecy.

Since for Ran prophecy is a
non-natural occurrence he can add requirements other than moral and
intellectual perfection.But Ran
agrees with Maimonides about what constitutes natural readiness.Yet, he feels the need to add aesthetic
considerations.How does Ran
explain the list of requirements for a prophet?He agrees that חכם is intellectual
perfection, and he finishes the quote that Maimonides left un-finished, with
the word עניו.Ran claims עניו refers to all moral perfections. He brings
a proof from the Talmud, [21].וענוה גדולה מכולםHe learns from this that the עניו has all other
subordinate moral qualities as well. Having derived the need for all moral
perfections and all intellectual perfections, Ran is left with the
question:What areגבור and עשיר?

Once Ran defines עניו
as all moral perfections, then גבור and עשיר
cannot also be moral perfections.Since Rabbi Yonatan’s statement includes עניו,
the other qualities in the list must be something other than moral
perfections.Ran uses this
Talmudic proof to promote his contention that there are criteria to prophecy
other than what the philosophers would require for natural prophecy.Thus, prophecy is not natural.Ran’s need to include such criteria is
consistent with his view that prophecy is given at G-d’s will and therefore
shows G-d’s freedom to act.

Over-Looking the Prerequisites:

One problem facing the claim
that there are pre-requisites to receiving prophecy is the apparent meaning of
the Torah to the effect that all the Israelites heard the Decalogue.This implies that everyone had some
level of prophecy.Maimonides in
the Moreh Nevuchim (2:32) writes: לא הגיע למדרגת הנבואה אלא הראוי לה .He asserts the text does not mean what it seems.In reality, only those people who were
fit for prophecy achieved prophecy at that time at Mount Sinai, but those who
were not fit for it, did not receive prophecy since, as he explains, G-d cannot
do the impossible.Someone who is
not fit cannot receive prophecy.

In chapter thirty-three,
Maimonides claims that not everything that went to Moses went to all the
Israelites.

As Maimonides explains, at Mount Sinai the Israelites heard some kind of
noise but they did not hear clearly the words of G-d.[23]Maimonides is compelled to say that
those who were not fit did not have prophecy, because natural prophecy requires
human perfection and readiness.There is no other concern than being perfect.The explanation for this is that prophecy is not so much
something that happens to a person, but something that one does to
oneself.It is a self-elevation, a
self-perfection, a going up to G-d and into a state of prophecy.If one has not elevated himself, he
cannot be made elevated, just as the frog cannot be made to think.There is no room for an exception.The requirements cannot be
overlooked.One must train himself
to become ready.G-d can prevent,
but He cannot allow a thing that is inherently impossible.One who is not ready, cannot have
prophecy, and G-d, himself, is bound to this rule.

Thus, Maimonides explains
that the first two דיברות were not actually heard by everyone.Since these דיברותwere
intellectual apprehensions, once they were explained to everyone then they are
as valid as if heard through prophecy.Whenever prophecy is purely intellectual, then when one knows it, he
knows it in the same way that the prophet knows it, and hence is equal to the
prophet as regards this particular prophecy.In a similar way, if a prophet knows a halacha
through his intellect, he knows it the same way that the chacham knows
it and this justifies his being able to teach it in the Sanhedrin.[24]To the extent that he knows something
through his wisdom, he and the wise man are the same.If Moses teaches every Israelite the idea of G-d’s unity,
then they know it just as well as Moses, since it is a provable thing, and so,
their knowledge of it is no different than Moses’.Essentially, neither is based on prophecy any longer,
but on the intellect.The
prophet has superior knowledge of only those things which the human intellect
cannot understand by reason and which are revealed to him.These things the prophet has a surer
knowledge of than one who merely hears them from the prophet and not directly
from G-d.Maimonides therefore
explains the equation of Moses to all the Israelites in the first two דיברות as derived from the intellectual nature of these דיברות.They know it via
prophecy just as much as Moses knows it via prophecy; in reality it is know via
the intellect.Thus, the prophecy
of Moses has become redefined as wisdom.[25]

Something that is logically provable is understood
equally by the prophet and one who understands it from a prophet.This is the meaning of all the
Israelites hearing the first twoדיברות
.It is not that they received it through prophecy, but
through wisdom, through Moses teaching them as a teacher and this puts them on
the same level of understanding as Moses.This is not the case with a law like tefillin that one cannot
understand purely intellectually.Maimonides forces this interpretation on Scripture in order to maintain
his principle of natural prophecy and reject the idea that the untutored can
prophesy.

Ran totally disagrees with
this approach.Ran claims that all
the Israelites heard the first two דיברות and G-d made an
exception to the requirement that a prophet meet certain prerequisites:

כדי שידעו באמת שהוא נביא השםיתברך ולא מצד האותות

They should believe that Moses is a prophet of G-d not
just because they see that he did miracles, but because they themselves
experienced the prophecy together with Moses.Just as the witness who witnesses an event sees the other
witnesses who are witnessing that event, so too did they, as prophets, see Moses
as a prophet.They then knew that
anything else he would tell them would be true and they would not listen to the
philosophers if the philosophers would disagree with Moses.Ran goes on to write:

The people were not at the right level but they were
made at the level for a moment so that they could understand that Moses was a
prophet.For Maimonides this
contention is untenable.Although
G-d can prevent someone from being a prophet through a miracle, He cannot grant
someone understanding, i.e. prophecy, that he cannot understand in any
way.If, however, prophecy is for
G-d’s glory, then it is logical that He can grant it whenever it is glorious
for Him.Moreover, to the extent
that prophecy is to perfect an imperfect soul, it primarily comes to the
imperfect.Additionally, granting
prophecy to the undeserving demonstrates G-d’s freedom to act.

However, if, as Maimonidesholds,
the state of prophecy is man’s self-perfection, then by definition, one who is
imperfect cannot be in this state.G-d cannot give him prophecy; G-d’s actions would then be imperfect.A teacher may give a student an A on a
test that he failed, but he cannot make him know the information.If the grade is just an honor from the
teacher, then the teacher can give any grade, but if it shows what the student
knows, then the teacher is not free to grade as he wishes.If the teacher would give the A, it
would show the teacher’s lack of constancy and perfection.G-d is also not free to grant prophecy
to the untutored.Ran understands
prophecy as being for G-d’s glory whereas Maimonides understands it as man’s self
perfection.Ran stresses G-d
freedom whereas Maimonides stresses G-d’s constancy.

The Uniqueness of
Moses:

Ran writes that Moses was unique in that
he attained a level not humanly possible, at least not possible by natural
means.[28]His proof is the verse:

Ran argues that if this level were attainable
naturally, then the Torah could not guarantee that no one would ever again
reach that level, since G-d will not hold back a benefit from one who deserves
it.[29]He thus uses Moses’ uniqueness to prove
that his level of prophecy is super-natural.Maimonides uses this same uniqueness to prove the opposite.Moses’ uniqueness is based on the very naturalness
of his prophecy.

Maimonides believes that Moses and other prophets are
both called prophets but the word “prophet” has distinct meanings in the two
instances.[30]In reference to Moses the term
“prophet” does not mean prophet as it does for every other person.What exactly is different about Moses’
prophecy?Shem Tov Ibn Shem Tov[31]
and Moses Narboni[32]
in their commentaries write that Moses is unique because he did not use the
imaginative faculty.Narboni lists
four differences in Moses’ prophetic level[33]:(1) Moses had prophecy not by means of
an angel, (2) Moses was awake, (3) Moses was in control of his senses, and (4)
Moses had prophecy whenever he willed to.In this connection let us refer to Aristotle’s only description of the
possibility of direct prophetic communication from G-d to man.[34]

And these stimuli produce mental pictures from which men
predict what will happen about such events.This is why this affection occurs more readily to ordinary
men and not to those who are specially intelligent.If it were G-d who sent them, they would appear by day also
and to the wise; but as it is, it is natural that ordinary men should
foresee;for the minds of such men
are not given to deep thought, but are empty and vacant of all thoughts, and
when once stimulated are carried away by the impulse.

Aristotle, like
Maimonides, divides prophecy into two distinct types.Aristotle believes that normal prophecy only occurs in
unwise people because unwise people have more vacant minds, and therefore are
influenced more by small stimuli that they apprehend.Whereas, thinking persons, people full of thought, have no
room for prophecy in the sense of foreseeing the future based on small stimuli,
because their minds are cluttered with all their deep thoughts.Simple people, who have empty minds
have the room to know about the future.This is what Aristotle calls prophecy.Aristotle also entertains the possibility that there could
be a second type of prophecy, some kind of a real communication from G-d.He writes that if it would be from G-d,
then it would be by day and to the wise.Since the minds of the wise are in tune with G-d, they can perceive true
thoughts while awake.

Aristotle’s second type of
prophecy is distinguished by two characteristics.It is by day and it only comes to a wise person.Only then is it called communication with
G-d.G-d will communicate by day
and to the wise since the mind of a wise man may be more perfect by
day.Maimonides stresses that
Moses prophesies in the day, and that he is a different kind of a prophet from
the other prophets.[35]Maimonides also frequently writes that
Moses is wise.[36]Perhaps Maimonides believes Moses is
unique in that his prophecy is directly from G-d.Aristotle defines prophecy as that type which he is familiar
with which comes to ordinary people and which is predicting the future in
dreams.[37]This is the normal meaning of the term
“prophecy” that Maimonides applies to ordinary prophets.It is regular people finding out about
the future, and those people do not have to be the extremely wise people.Moses is a completely different
prophet.

Moses is that kind of
prophet that Aristotle refers to as the prophet who really speaks with
G-d.This is why Maimonides
emphasizes that Moses communicates with G-d during the day; it shows that his
is true prophecy and not just the result of the vacancy of his mind.Rather, his mind is full because he is
a wise person, and thus the uniqueness of Moses’ prophecy is that Moses is
really a wise man. Moses is not truly a נביא in the normal
sense of the word.According to
Maimonides’ claim, in reference to Moses, נביא
is used amphibolously.Moses is
not a נביא in the same sense that all the other נביאים
are.His prophecy is the result of
what he thinks about in his conscious mind all day.Moses is, or represents, pure wisdom.[38]

Moses as the most wise is
the one capable of knowing and disseminating the law.This giving of wisdom from the wise man is the practical
meaning of his communicating directly with G-d.Moses has become the lawgiver rather than the law
receiver.In what sense can we say
Moses’ law is Divine?Joseph Kaspi
in his commentary equates the intellect of the perfect individual with G-d
Himself.[39]Real prophecy is the wisdom of the
individual.The other prophets
fall into the category that Aristotle describes as people who do not
communicate with G-d but merely apprehend things because their minds are
vacant.Surely no binding,
valuable or even coherent law system can be based on their vacuous ravings. Perhaps this is the reason Maimonides
puts such an emphasis on the difference between the prophecy of Moses and the
other prophets.Moses is the
prophet whose prophecy is equated with wisdom - to quote Kaspi, Moses “has G-d
in his head.”[40]

Maimonides’ explanation of
the first two דיברות supports this hypothesis.The first two דיברות
were accepted not on the basis of Moses’ authority as a prophet, but on the
basis of the intellect of the individual.The sages of the Talmud claim that all the Israelites heard the first
two דיברות on the same level as Moses[41].If Moses’ level is distinguished by
being human wisdom, then the Israelites having been on the same level as Moses
means they, too, understood the דיברות via wisdom.This is in deed what Maimonides believes.Moses’ communication of the content of
the first two דיברות was education.Moses is foremost משה רבנו, the
paradigm teacher.This is the
meaning of real prophecy.Moses’
authority is based on the intellect.The basis for the law of the ideal society is
intellect and wisdom.Consistent
to this view is the principle that Maimonides codifies in the Mishneh Torah[42]that a future prophet cannot explain a halacha on the basis of
prophecy but only based on his wisdom.

The Authority of Moses:

As stated previously, Ran
writes that the Israelites experienced the first two דיברות
as נבואה in order that they should believe in Moses as a true prophet
and that they should not listen to the philosophers if they contradict
Moses.Maimonides presents a
similar argument.He, however,
qualifies his argument that the prophecy of the Israelites and the prophecy of
Moses were unequal.Moses’
prophecy was a real communication with G-d whereas the Israelites’ prophecy was
from “in front of G-d,” i.e., they heard just the voices that were created for
this purpose.Nevertheless, they did
experience Moses speaking with G-d.In Mishneh Torah[43],
Maimonides writes:

Maimonides writes that the proof that caused the
Israelites to believe in Moses was

that they experienced Mount Sinai with Moses.He goes on to compare this to two
witnesses, witnessing the same event.This explanation is very similar to Ran except that according to
Maimonides explanation here, the Israelites did not actually attain the level
of Moses’ prophecy.They attained
a level that can be attained without any special preparation; anyone can see or
hear voices.One might suggest
that this hearing of voices might actually be what Ran means when he says that
the Israelites experienced prophecy even though they did not deserve it.This would imply that Ran’s conception
of prophecy includes a type of occurrence that Maimonides would not call
prophecy, but would only call hearing voices.Ran calls prophecy something that anybody can have if G-d
wills it.G-d may not give it to
certain people because it is not fitting to His glory, but He can break those
rules for certain purposes.Perhaps, according to Ran, prophecy is something almost physical and
therefore as with a physical phenomenon, anyone who can see and hear, can
experience it.This is what Maimonides
describes as hearing a created voice in front of G-d, but not true prophecy.

Maimonides would also agree
that one can hear a voice that G-d creates, but he would not call that prophecy
because prophecy is a special type of occurrence where one understands
something via the active intellect and with a perfected imaginative
faculty.One has to be prepared
for this, has to actively perfect these faculties.It is not a purely physical experience.It may be that the distinction between
Maimonides and Ran is one of terminology.Ran is willing to call things prophecy that Maimonides would not call
prophecy at all.

In the eleventh homily Ran’s treatment of believing in Moses
based on joint prophecy is more complex.He writes that there are two reasons why Moses was believed:

First, the belief in Moses was no different from the
belief in any prophet.The prophet
is believed when he predicts a future occurrence which then happens.This was the purpose of the miracles
that occurred in Egypt; but they were only enough for the people to follow only
the temporary מצוות.When Moses was to become a permanent lawgiver, that no future prophet
could ever uproot, he needed a more convincing proof of his authenticity.This was Mount Sinai:

G-d says to Moses that He comes to the Israelites in
His great wonders so they should believe in Moses forever.Ran has found a way to distinguish the
belief in Moses from the belief in other prophets which is not based on Moses’
wisdom, but on G-d’s demonstration of His choice of Moses.Ran hereby emphasizes G-d’s will
instead of emphasizing nature’s order.Let us note the differences from Maimonides’ understanding.

Empirical Versus A Priori Proof:

Ran understands the proof of
G-d at Sinai as being through the senses, through seeing and hearing.This accords with the view that G-d’s
essential quality is his freedom to act.To show His freedom of action, G-d must act in the world and man must
observe His actions.Thus, Ran’s
disciple, Hasdai Crescas, also bases belief on witnessing G-d’s freedom of
action.In Or Hashem he writes:

Crescas is thus saying that the Israelites know
that G-d can do anything and is the creator of the world because they saw in
Egypt what He did.Crescas also
holds, like his teacher Ran, that we rely on our senses to know that G-d is
truly the creator and truly the controller of the world.

Maimonides, in The
Guide for the Perplexed, asserts that the people believed in Moses because
they experienced the first twoדיברות
in the same intellectual way as Moses.This was possible since these two are
intellectual דיברות.Therefore, the people believed in Moses because they prophesied his
prophecy.Their prophecy and his,
however, were not exactly the same.His prophecy was direct prophecy from G-d whereas theirs was through
proof, but as Maimonides explains this is equivalent.However, Maimonides in Hilchot Yesodeh Hatorah is
much closer to Ran’s conception of an experiential proof.There, Maimonides seems to rely on the
senses and not the intellect as a proof of G-d.

On the one hand in the
Mishneh Torah Maimonides seems to say, similarly, that belief in G-d is
based on what was seen at Mount Sinai.The people saw that Moses was having prophecy with G-d so therefore they
believed in Moses’ prophecy.In
the Moreh Nevuchim the event is conceived of much more as an
intellectual experience.The
people had the same intellectual experience as Moses.If we leave this as a contradiction, we can argue that since
the Moreh Nevuchim presents a more thorough treatment of the subject we
can assume this view is closer to Maimonides’ true opinion.[45]Moreover, the view in the Moreh
Nevuchim seems more reasonable since logically one can only believe in
something that one understands.Therefore intellectual belief is really on a higher level.

Alternatively, if we
try to resolve the conflict between the two different explanations of
Maimonides’ we may explain:

שהמאמין עלפי האותות יש בלבו דפי.

The mind is not fully convinced just because the eye
sees.The simple understanding of
why there is this lack of surety is that a person may see something later that
contradicts his first observation, whereas an intellectual proof can never be
disproved if it really was an intellectual proof in the first place.Therefore, intellectual proofs have a
far greater hold.Thus, even in
Yesodeh Hatorah, it is not the sensual experience of Mount Sinai, as it is for
Ran and Crescas, but the intellectual experience of Mount Sinai that causes the
Israelites to believe in Moses.When Maimonides writes that the Israelites saw the voices he intends
that they intellectually experienced the prophecy, just as he write in the Guide.

But there is a more
essential explanation of Maimonides’ position.Maimonides’ dislike for relying on miracles as a proof of a
prophet’s being a true prophet may be related to a dislike for relying on
miracles as a proof of G-d’s very existence. Maimonides writes in the Moreh
Nevuchim that far from looking to miracles, we actually look to G-d’s
routine creation to know something about Him:

I
have already told you that nothing exists except G-d in this Universe, and that
there is no other evidence for his existence but this Universe in its entirety
and in its several parts.Consequently the Universe must be examined as it is, the propositions
must be derived from those properties of the Universe which are clearly
perceived and hence you must know itsvisible form and its nature.Then only will you find in the Universe evidence for the existence of a
Being not included therein.[46]

The way to understand G-d is through studying the
world, because that is the one thing we know for sure; by definition G-d
created the world, and by studying the world we find out about G-d.One of the main things we find
out is that G-d follows normal, orderly rules:the sun travels its course, the stars travel their course,
everything is fixed and constant.Thus, we learn that G-d’s creation follows unchanging laws.The thing that most goes against this
is miracles.Miracles show that
G-d does unusual things; that He is erratic.This is directly opposed to the unchanging, perfect
Aristotelian G-d of Maimonides.Therefore, Maimonides has to explain that miracles were intended originally
from the beginning of creation.But in general, the miracles teach the wrong thing about G-d.They teach that He is inconsistent;
that He changes. Thus any person who believes based on אותות,
based on miracles,“יש בלבו דופי”, he has doubt in his heart.He has incorrect thoughts in his heart; he thinks that G-d
is typified by miracles, that G-d does unusual things, that G-d is irrational
or that G-d is erratic.He does
one time, one thing, and another time, another thing.Thus the believer does not learn the constancy of G-d.This is the דופי
in his heart.[47]

Similarly, learning
from miracles to believe in Moses is also problematic.Belief in Moses should not be based on
what Moses did, or because of what was observed, but on intellectual perception
alone.What the
historical Moses did is time-connected.Moses’ one-time actions do not teach anything about his essential nature
and his authenticity.The reason
not to rely on miracles as the basis for belief in prophets is not that another
prophet doing a contrary miracle could refute the belief, or that the senses
could be playing a trick on the observer.Rather, miracles are an invalid basis for belief because just as one
must learn about G-d from His normal actions, from His creation, so must
one learn about the prophet from his essential unchanging essence.The only truly unchanging part of the
life of the prophet is his teaching.The events of his life are not constant, but his true teachings
are.Thus, the Israelites must
learn about Moses’ authenticity through a critical analysis of his
teachings.Just as
investigating G-d’s creation teaches about His existence, investigating the
prophet’s creation, his teachings, teaches about his authenticity and
validity.This is why a belief in
Moses that is based on the miracles he performed, and because of the
circumstances of his life, and not on the intellectual proofs of his essential
teachings is inherently flawed.Only his teachings are constant. That is the difference between
Maimonides on the one hand, and Crescas and Ran on the other.Crescas and Ran affirm G-d’s freedom of
action as demonstrated by His persistent involvement in the peculiarities of
history.Maimonides stresses G-d’s
perfect unfaltering constancy.

Aesthetic
Consideration:

Ran still has to
explain why a נביא has to be strong and rich, granted that
these are not moral or intellectual perfections.

Ran writes that גבור means
that the prophet has to be brave-hearted so that he should be able to speak to
the people things that they do not want to hear.But how can he explain the requirement to be rich and tall?

Ran explains that the prophet needs to be rich
and tall so that people will listen to him; so people who value things other
than חכמה will also listen to the נביא. The prophet must
be able to transmit his message.[50]Upon hearing that the prophet is rich,
the masses will assume that he must have something worthwhile to say.If he is tall and looks
important, they will also listen to him.Not everyone values wisdom.

In determining the
fitness of a given person to receive prophecy, Ran considers qualities external
to the person.Just as Ran accepts
physical experience as a proof of G-d, he realizes that people value different
aspects of the physical world.Therefore, the נביא must exemplify various physical
perfections.People trust their
senses and the נביא should acquiesce to that state of
being.He must be pleasing to
their senses.People do look up to
wealth and to good stature and physical form.Therefore, the נביא has to fit into
those categories that the people admire.

Maimonides totally
rejects giving into this tendency of valuing physical outward appearances and
therefore he does not accept this explanation for גבור
and עשיר.גבור and עשיר must be something moral because, a priori,
Maimonides disregards the physical appearance of the prophet. He accepts only
attributes that logically prepare one for natural prophecy.Prophecy is the perfection of
man’s intellect and character.What leads to this perfection is relevant, but what the prophet looks
like is irrelevant to determining his readiness to receive prophecy.The causes for the existence of
prophecy must be essential to prophecy.Thus, aesthetic considerations are rejected.This is in distinction to Ran who considers prophecy a gift,
not something necessarily earned.Therefore, just as one can choose to give a gift to someone one likes
even for some inessential reason, like his height, so to prophecy can be given
based on aesthetic considerations.Even though height may be essential in the sense that it facilitates
conveying the prophecy, it is nevertheless inessential to receiving
prophecy.

Maimonides in Moreh
Nevuchim (3:54) quotes Jeremiah to support his thesis that wisdom is only
perfection of man.This
passage is reminiscent of Ran’s discussion because it deals with people’s
valuing wealth and courage.

Jeremiah derides praise of external qualities in
men; he extols only praise of true wisdom.Maimonides understands from this, that the highest
perfection of man is wisdom.

Jeremiah’s statement
unsettles Ran’s opinion. Ran views prophecy as a gift that G-d gives to man and
therefore G-d can choose to give it to people who fit criteria that are not
necessarily intrinsic to attaining prophecy.According to Ran, Jeremiah himself had to be tall and brave
in order to become a prophet, and yet he tells the people not to value these
qualities.Jeremiah, instead,
lauds only wisdom.Jeremiah was
also wise, but the listener could question, reasoning that G-d chose Jeremiah
not only for his wisdom but, for example, also for his bravery, height and
strength.It must be, then, that
G-d does value these things.Bravery, height and strength are valuable.This undermines Jeremiah’s own argument.The נביא
should not be an example of that which hecomes to disparage.If the only thing that is valuable is
ones intellect, the prophet cannot be required to have other qualities; he
should not be a counter-example to his own argument.[53]Maimonides avoids this weakness by excluding
bravery, height and strength from his requirements for prophecy.

Maimonides believes
there is no need for the prophet to have qualities that are themselves
unimportant qualities.Maimonides
considers prophecy to be a perfection that man has to attain; it is man moving
up towards G-d.Therefore, what is
required for prophecy is whatever brings man closer to G-d whether that be
wisdom or some other essential trait, but not things such as wealth[54]or
tallness that are not essential in bringing one closer to G-d.Maimonides writes quite clearly:[55]

The only perfection is wisdom, whereas other
things that some people consider as perfection are, in fact, unimportant.It is part of the prophet’s mission to
convince people of this.Surely
he, himself, is not an example to the contrary.

On the one hand, what
causes Ran to assert that the prerequisites for prophecy are not really
required is his premise that G-d is free to do anything, but on the other hand,
there is also a more immediate cause. Ran takes the statements that all the
Israelites, even the lowly maidservants, had a prophetic vision at the Sea of
Reeds on leaving Egypt literally.Even the nursing infant saw G-d.That maid was not necessarily wise and morally perfect and yet she saw
this.Ran is faced with unmet
requirements.How could the
prophecy occur in people without these perfections?Ran answers this by asserting that just as the secondary
criteria such as wealth and tallness are not essential, so too the primary
criteria such as wisdom are not essential and G-d can overlook any deficiencies
in these areas when granting prophecy.Ran turns the list of requirements into a list of preferences.The only essential criteria left
is G-d’s will and desire that such and such a person should have prophecy.Thus by adding inessential criteria Ran
effectively diluted all the criteria to the extent that they are all
categorized as inessential.Thus,
anyone, even a maidservant and all the people at Mount Sinai can have
prophecy.In this way, Ran
is able to firmly assert G-d’s unlimited freedom and the dependency of all
events purely on His will.

Ran’s Forced
Arguments:

Ran explains the
requirement for a prophet to be of tall stature in the following way:

After explaining the requirement of the prophet
to be physically perfect, and to possess physical characteristics needed to
convince the masses, Ran must explain how the greatest prophet, the
representative of G-d in the world be lacking in such a critical requirement
for communicating G-d’s message – his being ערל שפתיים?Ran asserts that nature could not have
been an obstacle for Moses, because everything that G-d did with Moses was
beyond the rules of nature.G-d could have healed Moses supernaturally.

ושהשלימו השם יתברך בענין נסיי

Ran holds that Moses could not have reached his
high level naturally, so one would expect G-d to have removed his speech
impediment miraculously also.Why was Moses left with this problem?According Ran, Moses was left with his speech impediment
precisely to show that he was on a miraculous level of existence.

Ran contends that if prophecy descends on people
in a natural way, then they would lose bodily control and would go into a
trance.But if prophecy comes to a
person while he is awake and on his feet, perfect in all his facilities,[59]
just as a person speaks to his friend - this is impossible according to nature
because this is as if he is a person and an abstract intellect at once.But this is how Moses’ prophecy
occurred.G-d wanted the Torah to
be beyond nature and so he wanted the prophecy to be beyond nature.To show the truth of the Torah it must
be shown that Moses’ giving the Law is not just a natural occurrence but that
it is from G-d.So no one should
think that Moses was naturally coming up with these ideas and was naturally
able to persuade a whole nation, G-d chose a person to be leader who had
natural deficiencies in being a leader.And the fact he succeeded shows that G-d was directing him and that the
Torah is really from G-d.Ran is
willing to violate his own rules and assumptions about how G-d runs the world,
for other considerations.

Moses was left with his speech impediment so that
no one should think he inveigled the Israelites into accepting the Torah.Since he was incapable of beguiling any
one, and they still listened to him, it must be that they really did see the
events of Mount Sinai, and the Torah must really be Divine.Moses could not have convinced them had
it not been true.Ran ignores
criteria he himself set up.His
premise before was that a prophet needs to lead the people and therefore he
must be a good communicator and therefore he must be brave, tall, and
presumably able to speak well.Ran
breaks this rule for the greatest prophet. G-d is conceived of as acting counter
to His own expected rational behavior.Ran is faced with a difficulty, and not only does he apologize for it,
he tries to incorporate it into his argument, but the argument is forced.Ran is able to show G-d’s freedom of
action.By granting the blemished
person prophecy, G-d show his ability to do anything.It is ironic that the quote from R. Yonaton that Ran brings
at the start of his homily derives the prerequisites of prophecy from Moses.The paradigm of prophecy is thus
himself an exception to the rules he generates.

Homily eleven also
presents G-d as acting counter to his perfection would seem to dictate. Ran
asks, why did G-d ask the Israelites to borrow valuables from their neighbors
before leaving Egypt?Why use this
trick to get their valuables?If
G-d is all-powerful, let Him force the Egyptians to give away their
things?He writes:

G-d wanted to trick the Egyptians.The Egyptians should think there is no
G-d protecting the Israelites, and therefore the Israelites were forced to
trick them.G-d’s objective is
that the Egyptians should pursue them to try to destroy them so that G-d can
punish the Egyptians for this attempt.G-d tricks the Egyptians so that He can punish them.The flaw in this line of reasoning is
that the mere fact that He creates a justification to punish them causes that
justification to lose all claim on legitimacy.Obviously, G-d just wants to punish the Egyptian.Ran presents a G-d acting counter
to His true nature - in this case, His omnipotent nature - in order to achieve
some tangential aim.Similar
to the counterintuitive argument in Ran’s fifth homily regarding Moses’ flaws,
the argument here shows that G-d can do anything, even things which are
seemingly illogical.

Whether having to
trick the Egyptians or providing a leader with basic inadequacies, G-d, in the
thought of Ran, exercises his freedom of will in ways inconsistent to His
perfection.G-d breaks the very
rules of logic Ran set up for Him.Ran does succeed in showing that G-d is all-able or free to act, since
G-d is not bound by even His own rules.His freedom to act overshadows His nature and the rules of logic.This concept is repeated by Crescas and
foreshadows M. H. Luzzatto in Daat T’vunot and other cabalists.G-d’s freedom and His being beyond
logic are the paramount example of G-d’s perfection.Perfection is not the static state Maimonides describes, but
it is limitless freedom to act.

A weakness in Ran’s
position it is that his explanations for difficulties do not flow in a
straightforward manner from his claims.In reality, Ran is faced with contradictions to his theological system,
for example, the theory of the requirements of prophecy, that he then manages
to incorporate based on this principle of freedom of action.It does not appear that he develops his
theory of prophecy based on the exceptions to the rules of prophecy.Rather, once given the fact that Moses
had a speech impediment, Ran explains it, or apologizes for it.By saying that G-d will do the opposite
of what He should do just to prove He can do anything, he loses the ability to
say anything meaningful about G-d.G-d may do a thing and its opposite.There is no longer a concept of Divine behavior since
perhaps G-d should do the opposite.G-d’s behavior has become unknowable;[62]
nature also reveals nothing about Him.All that can be investigated is G-d’s essence.Prophecy also becomes unknowable since it has not fixed set
of conditions and parameters.It,
like all of creation, is dependent on the momentary will of G-d.Ran holds that the nature of prophecy
cannot be characterized.

Conclusion:

Maimonides who conceives of G-d as a perfect
unchanging being must understand prophecy as man developing a union between his
mind and G-d.Some action must
take place for this union to occur.Action implies change and therefore G-d cannot act.Therefore, the burden of
establishing a link with G-d rests on man who can change.Only the man who has brought himself up
to G-d’s level of perfection can commune with G-d in a state of prophecy.There is no possibility of this type of
communion between G-d and an unperfected being.Therefore,

Maimonides cannot admit the possibility of prophecy where the conditions
for it are absent.This would be
as if an improperly build radio receiver could nevertheless receive
signals.By affirming G-d’s
perfection, Maimonides is forced to limit G-d’s freedom to act.

Ran considers the aspect of G-d that is of
utmost importance to be His freedom of action.For G-d to be truly free to act, He must be able to do even
that which contradicts the bounds of reason.Therefore, there cannot be any necessary conditions for the
state of prophecy to obtain in a person.The existence of necessary conditions would imply that G-d is bound to a
set of rules.This would limit His
freedom of action.Rather,
prophecy, like all other events in Creation, is solely subject to the will of
G-d.Whatever pleases and
glorifies G-d and serves His purposes can and will occur.Therefore, any person can prophesy and
there are no real necessary conditions to engender prophecy.

These two different starting points are at
the core of the debate between Maimonides and Ran.Since Ran believes prophecy occurs due to the will of G-d,
he is lead to believe there must always be a specific reason why prophecy will
come to a man.Therefore, prophecy
has an objective, the revealing of law to man.It may also have the objective of convincing people of a
certain individual’s genuineness.Whenever Divine will is the cause for something
there must be an objective or goal to that will.Alternatively, if events of the world are natural
consequences of a perfect system, as Maimonides believes, there may be no
specific goal for a certain occurrence.The spheres revolve because that is their perfect nature, not because
G-d has a specific reason why each day they must revolve.To quote Maimonides in a slightly
different context, “they do the truth because it is true.”[63]Similarly, it is inconceivable that
prophecy could come to a person for some external reason.The Universe does not run based on will
but based on causes.A person must
fulfill the necessary criteria in order to prophesy.It is equally inconceivable that a person could have
prophecy withheld when the necessary causes for prophecy exist.Maimonides firmly establishes G-d
unchanging perfection but must sacrifice G-d’s ability to act freely.These two contradictory assertions,
G-d’s perfection and G-d’s freedom, underlie the two different views of the
function and nature of prophecy held by Maimonides and Ran.

[2]Politics of Aristotle, Loeb
Edition, 1:1:9 1253a2 ff.“From
these things therefore it is clear that the city state is a natural growth and
that man by nature is a political animal.”

[3]“And from the great and well-known miracles a man comes to admit
to hidden miracles which are the foundation of the whole Torah.A person has no portion in the Torah of
Moshe Rabeinu unless he believes that all our matters and circumstances are
miracles and they do not follow nature or the general custom of the world
…rather, if one does mitzvot he will succeed in his finances …” Ramban Perush
leTorah, Exodus 13:16 end.

[10]This point may be taken from
Maimoides’ own experience, but it also appears in Aristotle’s On Prophecy In
Sleep “the stimulus arising from the first causes in the daytime has paved
the way for [the dream]’463a lines 26-27.The prophet may be someone who thinks all day about G-d, one whose every
waking moment is concerned with G-d, as Maimonides describes in the Guide 2:36,
3:51, and therefore dreams at night also about G-d.

[13]It is interesting to note
that Maimonides actually only requires “most” of the moral perfections (see
chapter 7 of the Eight Chapters).Thus, a person with certain moral flaws, a disgraceful person, can get
prophecy.I do not mean to
imply that Maimonides actually conceives of prophecy occurring in a person
without the perfections the philosophers speaks of, but I am only making a
point in terminology.Maimonides
terms perfection a “requirement” whereas Ran terms it “ראוי,”
a preference.For Maimonides,
since prophecy is natural there cannot be any “preferences.”For Ran, since it is the will of G-d,
it is only His preferences.Our starting point is G-d’s desires, and only if we can explain them can
we explain the prerequisites for prophecy.Maimonides staring point is man’s perfection.When we understand that, we can
determine what the prerequisites for prophecy are.

[16]Maimonides here seems to
identify his opinion with Aristotle’s explanation of prophecy with no
difference other than the one stated, that G-d can withhold prophecy from one
who deserves it.But, the only
prophecy we find Aristotle admitting to is a natural hypersensitivity (see
footnote 37), but no prophecy directly from G-d is admitted to as actually
occurring.Based on the fact that
Maimonides identifies his opinion as the same as a non-existent opinion,
Aristotle’s, one could make a Straussian type argument that Maimonides is
hinting his own denial of the direct divine character of prophecy.However, in II:13 where Maimonides
discusses the various views on the eternity of the world,we find Maimonides lists Aristotle
separately from the other philosophers.This may mean that here too by דעת הפילוסופים he means
not Aristotle but other Neo-platonic Arabic philosophers.If Maimonides is identifying the Sages’
view with these philosophers, who do conceive of a direct divine prophecy, then
the Straussian type argument looses its force.On the other hand, in II:14 Maimonides writes: “I shall pay
no attention to anyone who besides Aristotle has engaged in speculative
discourse, for it is his opinions that ought to be considered.”

[17]For a discussion of whether
Maimonides believes in the possibility of miracles see A. Reines, Maimonides’
Concept of Miracles, HUCA, 1968.Maimonides’ referral to G-d’s freedom to prevent prophecy as miraculous
could be considered a tacit denial of this freedom.

[18]See end of note 59 where I
discuss Ran’s redefinition of natural as meaning following G-d’s usual rules,
however miraculous they may be.

[23]Maimonides brings proof to the fact that people did
not really have prophecy.In 2:33,
Maimonides says that they only heard a created voice; they did not really hear
G-d.He quotes Onqelos to prove
his point.Onqelos, in general,
translates “וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר “ as: “ומליל ה' עם משה” which means G-d speaks with Moses, but in our section where it
says:

Maimonides believes that Onqelos means there was a voice
from in front of G-d, קדם ה'.It was not from G-d directly.The people did not hear G-d speaking, they heard something from in front
of G-d, i.e. G-d created something external and that’s what they heard.They heard a created voice for the
purpose of talking to them but that is not called prophecy.His proof is from Onqelos that the
Israelites did not hear the voice in the sense of prophecy but, just in the
sense of normal hearing.

[25]I will discuss this special
definition of Moses' prophecy as wisdom, and thus its ability to establish law
(just as any law created in future generations must be based on wisdom) later
in this paper.

[29]It is worth noting that
Maimonides says precisely this, that G-d does hold back the benefit of prophecy
from those deserving it.Since Ran
presumably agrees that prophecy is with held for various reasons, it seems he
must then hold that no one ever really deserves prophecy.This fits to his overall theory that
prophecy can be bestowed on anyone G-d wishes and not on the basis of deservedness.

[30]The word סיפוק appears also in 1:3 and 1:56.In all three places it is translated in Pines Ed. as
“amphibolous.”

[37]This
comparison between prophecy and dreams occurs in Aristotle’s On Prophecy in
Sleep(463a8 ff.).He
writes: “Stimuli occurring in the daytime if they are not very great and
powerful, pass unnoticed because of greater waking impulses.But in the time of sleep, the opposite
takes place, for then small stimuli seem to be great.”He then writes that if a person hears
in his dreams small sounds, he may think in his dream that it is lightning or
there is a great war taking place. Things are exaggerated in dreams but are
based on what one experiences.Subtle sensations are detected because the senses are at rest.Aristotle continues(462a18): “Since the
beginnings of all things are small, obviously the beginnings of diseases and
other distempers which are about to visit the body must also be small.Clearly then, these must be more
evident in sleep than in the waking state.”Aristotle explains that dreams may contain truth about the
future because of a hypersensitivity of man.Man is more sensitive in his sleeping state and therefore
can sense things coming in a natural way.

[38]See Guide 2:36 for a
discussion of the constant involvement of the perfect man’s thoughts in divine
matters.See also Guide 3:51 in
this regard.It seems that Moses prophecy
is the (natural) result of intense contemplation.Moses may be equated with the Active Intellect (G-d).This idea is developed in Kaspi’s
commentary.See following
footnote.

[45]According to the 5th
reason Maimonides lists in his introduction, an author may contradict himself
because in one place he is giving only an abbreviated treatment of the matter.

See מורה
נבוכים כנ"ל עמ' ט"ז.

[46]The Guide of the Perplexed,
Friedlander Ed. Book I Chapter 71, end.

[47]By recommending
study of the natural world, Maimonides does rely on the senses but only to
establish true logical axioms, in accordance with reason, and not to learn
things beyond reason.Thus reason
remains the ultimate arbiter of truth, and not the senses.

A
person may receive a level of prophecy enabling him to perfect himself but not
others.There can be an overflow
to a person even if it will not lead to any communication to other men.Ran would have to deny this kind of
overflow.Since it lacks any
purpose in communicating to mankind and thus lacks the fundamental purpose of
prophecy, G-d would not desire to bestow it.

[53]The argument might be made:
people would never listen to someone who says, “Do not value wealth” if he
himself is poor.But if a
rich person says, “Do not value wealth,” then people will respect him and say,
“Even though he has money, he still says it is worthless.”Thus Jeremiah had to be wealthy to
legitimately criticize it.On the
other hand, one might equally argue that if he is wealthy, he is
insincere.He is saying not to
value wealth but he has wealth and he is saying this only because he does not
know what poverty is.It is easy
for a person who has these things to say they are not important, but for
someone who does not have them, they are important.The most convincingargument, in our view, is that it is
inconsistent for a prophet to be counter-example of the kind of perfection he
preaches.

[54]In the Mishneh Torah,
Maimonides does consider wealth vital.But perhaps this is as a preparatory need, providing the free time to
explore intellectual matters.

[58]This seems to
contradict idea that even if one is perfect he may not get prophecy if he is in
galut etc. Moreover, Ran holds that prophecy is not אפשרית but is a gift in the
first place, so G-d certainly may prevent one from having prophecy.Ran should assert that it is not
denying him that which is his but only refraining from giving him a gift.This seems to be an inconsistency.

[59]As we showed earlier,
Maimonides, based on Aristotle, used the conscious character of Moses’ prophecy
to prove it was a natural state, one of heightened wisdom, and truly connected
with the abstract intellect.Thus
it is trustworthy.Ran uses this
same fact to claim that Moses’ prophecy was totally unnatural. The normal
prophecy, as it occurs in nature, is a kind of trance where a person goes out
of the natural world and into the Divine world.Moses’ not being this way, but being so in-this- world,
being so within nature, makes his prophecy unnatural!But there is ambiguity in the use of the term natural
for Ran.What Ran really means is
out-of-the-ordinary.The normal
prophet has a prophecy in a supernatural trance.To be in a conscious state and to understand things from G-d
is thus out-of-the-ordinary in its being so natural.For both Maimonides and Ran, Moses’ “natural” prophecy
proves his uniqueness, and gives him his authority.For Maimonides thismeans that Moses spoke with true wisdom, for Ran that he truly spoke
with G-d.

[62]Maimonides, however, argues that G-d’s essence must be fundamentally
unknowable, whereas His behavior is all that can be known.Ran implies the opposite.G-d’s true behavior is unknowable.Perhaps His essence is knowable.